Taylor et al v. Kelley et al, No. 2:2015cv00188 - Document 73 (E.D. Ark. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER adopting 72 proposed findings and recommendations in their entirety; granting Defendants' 58 Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing Defendants Bailey, Kelley, Reed, and Earl from this action without prejudice; dismissing Plaintiff Robinson's claims against Defendants Lay, Burnett, and Bray without prejudice; and denying Plaintiffs' 67 Motion to Strike. Signed by Judge James M. Moody Jr. on 09/27/2016. (rhm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taylor et al v. Kelley et al Doc. 73 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS EASTERN DIVISION RICKEY TAYLOR, ADC #110675, and DE’MARION ROBINSON, ADC #150420 PLAINTIFFS 2:15CV00188-JM-JTK WENDY KELLEY, et al. DEFENDANTS ORDER The Court has received proposed findings and recommendations from United States Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney. There have been no objections. After a review of those proposed findings and recommendations, the Court adopts them in their entirety. Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that: 1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 58) is GRANTED. 2. Defendants Bailey, Kelley, Reed, and Earl are DISMISSED from this action, without prejudice, for failure to exhaust. 3. Plaintiff Robinson’s claims against Defendants Lay, Burnett, and Bray are DISMISSED without prejudice, for failure to exhaust. 4. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 67) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 27th day of September, 2016. ______________________________________ JAMES M. MOODY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
